Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmla Devi And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 16 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995CRILJ3553
Author: S.C. Malte
Bench: S.C. Malte
JUDGMENT S.C. Malte, J.
1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by his judgment dated 15-3-1993 convicted the appellants of the charge under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Code. In respect of the offence under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Code, appellants No. I and 2 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and appellant No. 3 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. No separate sentence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Code was passed.
2. Deceased - Resham Kaur was the wife of appellant No. 3 Sohan Lal. Appellant No. 1 Nirmla Devi and appellant No. 2 - Daulat Ram are the mother and father, respectively, of the appellant No. 3. The marriage of Resham Kaur and appellant No. 3 - Sohan Lal was performed on 9-7-1990. Soon after marriage, Resham Kaur went to stay with her husband. The First Information Report in this case indicates that after about a month since marriage, the deceased - Resham Kaur came to her parent's house and had then complained that her husband and parents-in-law harrassed her almost every day on the issue of insufficient dowry and for having not given a television set and a refrigerator. On knowing such an attitude met with to Resham Kaur, her father, along with her uncle Gulzara Ram (Complainant), Darshan Singh - the Sarpanch of the village, and Joga Singh - a member of the Panchayat, together, went to the house of Sohan Lal and used their good office to persuade him and his parents to give good treatment to Resham Kaur. The First Information Report indicates that all these efforts turned futile and the harassment to Resham Kaur on the issue of insufficient dowry continued. Thereafter on 13-1-1 992, Resham Kaur with husband Sohan Lal came to her parent's house to celebrate wedding ceremony of her brother - Lehmber Kumar. On that occassion also, Resham Kaur made a grievance regarding harassment met out to her as before. The parents of Resham Kaur, however, pleaded with Sohan Lal and his parents that they were poor and unable to give the articles like television set and refrigerator. After the wedding of her brother was over, Resham Kaur stayed for some days at her parent's house. On 20-2-1992, father of Resham Kaur along with Gulzara Ram took Resham Kaur with them and reached the house of Sohan Lal. On this occassion also, father of Resham Kaur and her uncle Gulzara Ram expressed their inability to supply television set and refrigerator. On 22-2-1992, Gulzara Ram, the unlce of Resham Kaur went to the house of appellants to see his niece. There he found the house locked and from the neighbours, he learnt that the mother-in-law of Resham Kaur had taken her to Civil Hospital at Adampur. Thereupon Gulzara Ram went to Civil Hospital, Adampur. There he learnt that Resham Kaur had been referred to the civil hospital, Jalandhar. He, therefore, came to Jalandhar, and there in the hospital he learnt that Resham Kaur had already passed away. The doctors had already informed the police regarding the admission of Resham Kaur who was then diagonosed as a victim of poisoning. The police had arrived at the hospital. While in the hospital, the complaint of Gulzara Ram came to be recorded at about 2.00 p.m.. It was duly registered and investigation started.
3. During the autopsy examination of the dead body of Resham Kaur, the contents from the stomach, pieces of small and large intestines, pieces of liver and kidney were taken by way of sample. These were subjected to chemical examination. The analyser opined that in the contents of the stomach and in the sample of small and large intestines a poisonous substance known as Aluminium Phosphide which is a pesticide, was detected, arid the same was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
4. The appellant - accused denied the prosecution case into to. They did not examine any defence witness The Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants - accused, as stated above. Against that judgment of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred.
5. Counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence and submitted that appellants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the parents of appellant No. 3, were admittedly living separate from appellant No. 3 - Sohan Lal and his wife deceased - Resham Kaur. It was further submitted that there is no material to show that Resham Kaur was being ever harassed on the issue of insufficient dowry. Learned counsel urged that the total reading of the deposition of each of the witnesses would clearly indicate that there was no harassment to the deceased. He contended that the Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in observing that the admissions given by the prosecution witnesses to dispel its case would not yield any benefit to the accused.
6. PW. 2 - Daulat Ram, father of deceased - Resham Kaur, in examination-in-chief testified that deceased - Resham Kaur used to tell him that she was being ill-treated by her husband and parents-in-law on the issue of dowry. He further deposed that at the time of the marriage of his son, these accused had reiterated their demand for supply of a refrigerator and television set. In the cross-examination, he made a variation by stating that Resham Kaur her self did not directly communicate with him regarding the ill-treatment to her; but such information had been received by him from her mother. According to him, Resham Kaur used to tell her mother who, in turn, used to relate it to him. In other words, it is clear that the claim made by Daulat Ram that Resham Kaur used to tell him regarding the ill-treatment was not quite a correct statement. Since Resham Kaur is said to have made a grievance to her mother who, later on, related it to others, the mother or Resham Kaur was obviously a very material witness. Unfortunately, in this case the mother of deceased Resham Kaur was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness. As regards the grievance that these appellants had reiterated their demand for television set and Fridge on the occassion of the wedding ceremony of Lehmber Kumar son of Daulat Ram, the evidence of Daulat Ram clearly shows that all that took place was that Resham Kaur said that if Lahmber would demand and get a television set and Fridge as his dowry, she would also desire to have a similar television set and Fridge for herself. On this occassion, Daulat Ram assured Resham Kaur that in case Lehmbar Kumar gets television set and Fridge as dowry, he would also give similar articles to her to match with what Lahmber would get. It, therefore, appears that the so-called harassment on the issue of insufficient dowry and demand for television set and a Fridge has not been properly spelt out from the testimony of Daulat Ram. It may be mentioned that Daulat Ram nowhere stated in his deposition that he along with the Sarpanch and other persons had gone to the house of Resham Kaur in order to persuade her husband and parents-in-law to give up the harassment to Resham Kaur on the issue of insufficient dowry. On the other hand, he deposed that when he with his daughter went to her husband's house, none of the persons from the house of in-laws of Resham Kaur held talk with him.
7. PW. 3 Gulzara Ram, the uncle of Resham Kaur, is the complainant who gave First Information Report. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that Resham Kaur used to make a grievance regarding ill-treatment to her by in-laws on the issue of insufficient dowry. He further claimed that once he along with father of Resham Kaur had gone to the house of her in-laws to explain that they were unable to give anything more than what had already been given by way of dowry. In the cross-examination, he stated that the only occassion when he had seen Resham Kaur since her marriage was at the time of wedding of her brother-Lehmber Kumar. He further deposed that as regards the grievance made by Resham Kaur regarding ill-treatment to her in the house of her husband, he learnt it from the mother of Resham Kaur. Here again, it is obvious that the mother of Resham Kaur figures as an important witness to reveal as a first hand text of the conversation between her and Resham Kaur. But, she has not been examined. The evidence of Gulzara Ram further indicates that after the marriage of Lehmber Kumar, he accompanied Daulat Ram and Resham Kaur while taking her to the house of appellants. He further testified that on that occassion no conversation in respect of dowry or gifts of articles took place. He further stated that appellant No. 3 - Sohan Lal had turned inimical towards his mother and brother and at the time of his visit as above the only topic for discussion pertained to the issue that resulted into straining of relations of these persons. In other words, appellant No. 1 - Nirmala Devi, the mother of appellant No. 3 did not have cordial relations with appellant No. 3. Under these conditions, it appears rather difficult to accept that appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 would join hands in order to harass Resham Kaur on the issue of dowry.
8. PW. 4 - Darshan Singh is the Sarpanch of the village where the parents of Resham Kaur are staying. He claims that he accompanied Daulat Ram, PW. 3 Gulzara Ram and one Joga Singh, a member of the Gram Panchayat, and had been to the house of Resham Kaur to persuade her husband and parents- in-law to desist from ill-treatment to her on the issue of insufficiency of dowry. In cross-examination, he stated that Resham Kaur, however, never told him regarding ill-treatment to her. The visit of Darshan Singh to the house of Resham Kaur becomes doubtful when one finds that neither PW2 Daulat Ram nor PW3 Gulzara Ram deposed that they had used the good office of Darshan Singh to persuade the appellants to desist from harassment to Resham Kaur. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to accept the claim made by Darshan Singh.
9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the discrepancies found in the testimony of the witnesses has observed that these were as a results of the tricks and no benefit out of such tricks would yield in favour of the accused. We are unable to subscribe his view. The testimony of a witness is to be read as a whole in order to ascertain his credibility. As observed earlier, the mother of Resham Kaur was an important witness who could have testified regarding the grievance narrated to herby Resham Kaur. The father and uncle of Resham Kaur admitted that Resham Kaur had not directly talked with them regarding the ill-treatment. They claimed to have derived the information from the mother of Resham Kaur. As to what actual talk Resham Kaur had with her mother, could have been properly testified by her mother. We are unable to appreciate and understand why such an important witness was neither cited nor examined. The Scrutiny of the evidence of PW2 Daulat Ram and PW3 Gulzara Ram also creates an element of doubt as to the alleged demand of television set and Fridge. In this case, no doubt, Resham Kaur died in very suspicious circumstances. The post mortem report coupled with the report of the chemical analyser indicates that Resham Kaur dies of poison. The post mortem report does not indicate any marks or violence on the body of Resham Kaur. It is, therefore, not possible to say that Resham Kaur was subjected to some violence and that she was forcibly administered posion. Evidence is also deficient to conclude as to the circumstances and manner in which poison was consumed by Resham Kaur.
In a case of death of a young bride within a short span since the marriage, there is always an element of sympathy. However, the assessment of the evidence should be dispassionate and without any sentimental bias. In this case it may be further mentioned that the evidence of PW2 Daulat Ram indicates that appellant No. 3 Sohan Lal was living separate from his parents. That is also one of the factors that militates against the prosecution case that Sohan Lal and his parents joined hands while harrassing Resham Kaur. That apart, the totality of the evidence of the prosecution leaves a wide gap between what may be true and what must be true. We are. therefore, constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellants.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside.